26 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadTacitus, Pliny and Lucien are reporting only that there were Christians and some of their basic beliefs. That's not very convincing proof; we know Christians existed.
Surely this is only non-biblical evidence for Christians, which is not under dispute. They report on the existence of Chrisitans and their beliefs but do not provide any separate evidence for the existence of Jesus.
The Talmud says a Yeshua was "hanged" which the site tries to twist into "crucified". I think they would have known the difference. Besides, that isn't much proof either.
One of Josephus' references is a clear fake as even that cite concedes. The best evidence is the other reference about James being the Christus' brother. Considering the mass of Jewish and Roman historical writing in the first century, one oblique reference isn't much.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Funny, God's Chosen People i.e. the Jews don't believe that Jesus' birth (if it happened) was of any special significance; they're still waiting for the Messiah foretold in the OT.
Jesus' birth is foretold in the book of Isaiah. The Old Testament centers on God's chosen people and the prophets who lead them.
Interesting article. I like how it reads at the top "This document has been swiped from elsewhere on the internet."
I also like how the link to it's original source doesn't work.
I will read it and examine it.
...[text shortened]... pertaining to non-biblical evidence for Jesus.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes I admit it. If those other religions have survived that long then I would think that they are not complete B.S. I did not mean to claim that all other religions were 100% "wrong." Sorry if it seemed like that.
So, do you now admit that there are other religions that have lasted longer than Christianity? How does this fit with your original claims?
Do you have any evidence for your 33% statistic? I find it very hard to believe. Are you including all the different denominations many of which deny that some of the other denominations are Christian? Are you including Jews and Muslims?
As for the statistics
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
http://exchristian.net/pics/worldreligions.html
http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/mystat.html
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is the paragraph
Tacitus, Pliny and Lucien are reporting only that there were Christians and some of their basic beliefs. That's not very convincing proof; we know Christians existed.
One of Josephus' references is a clear fake as even that cite concedes. The best evidence is the other reference about James being the Christus' brother. Considering the mass ...[text shortened]... Jewish and Roman historical writing in the first century, one oblique reference isn't much.
"
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!"
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001To arrive at your perspective, you have to assume a number of things (eg. a creator God exists) that to many are not self-evident. You'll probably always talk at cross-purposes with people who don't share your assumptions.
You are correct.
God chose Jesus to be born into this group.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001That's what we call "spin".
There is the paragraph
"
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known ...[text shortened]... gly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!"
You might not want to rely on the Talmud story of Yeshua as "proof" of Jesus:
story about a man named Yeshu can be found in the Talmud. There is debate whether this Yeshu in the Talmud is the same Jesus who later became a Christian divinity.
According to the Talmud, Yeshu was the son of a Jewish woman named Miriam who was betrothed to a carpenter. "Betrothed" means she was legally married to him, but she was not yet living with him or having sexual relations with him. The story says that Miriam was either raped by or voluntarily slept with Pandeira, a Greek or Roman soldier. Miriam than gave birth to Yeshu, who was considered a "mamzer" (bastard), a product of an adulterous relationship. The Talmud describes Yeshu as a heretic who dabbled in sorcery and lead the people astray. Later, the Sanhedrin (the Jewish "Supreme Court"đ ordered Yeshu stoned to death and his dead body was hung from a tree until nightfall after his death, in accordance with the ancient Jewish punishment for heretics.
While some believe there is no connection between the Talmudic Yeshu and the Christian Jesus, others believe there is a connection. The main inconsistency between the Talmudic and Christian story is that during the time that Jesus was killed, the Romans ruled and the Sanhedrin did not have the power to impose the death penalty. Thus, some Jews believe that today's popular Christian ideas about Jesus are based on a melding of the Talmudic story of Yeshu and the historian Josephus' writing about Jesus, which included his execution by the Romans.
http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefs/a/jesus.htm
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes I am assuming God is or at least there is a supreme being. We can start another thread on this. Any other assumptions I am making that others are not?
To arrive at your perspective, you have to assume a number of things (eg. a creator God exists) that to many are not self-evident. You'll probably always talk at cross-purposes with people who don't share your assumptions.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Thanks for the reference to the statistics.
Yes I admit it. If those other religions have survived that long then I would think that they are not complete B.S. I did not mean to claim that all other religions were 100% "wrong." Sorry if it seemed like that.
So, you give some respect to religions for lasting over 2000 years. What about a religion which started last year but will last until 2000 years from now?
Why is it important to last a long time? Is this really an indication of the validity of any religious claims? Is a religion that lasts 1000 years better than one that lasts 500 years?
26 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Yeah, that means Christianity is correct. It didn't used to be; back in the day, Christianity was wrong. I mean...it wasn't the most popular religion in A.D. 50, so it must have been wrong back then!
Taoism- some facts from the website.
"Taoism started as a combination of psychology and philosophy but evolved into a religious faith in 440 CE when it was adopted as a state religion."
"Taoism currently has about 20 million followers"
Christianity has a lot more. 33% of the world.
And, since Islam is the fastest growing religion, soon it will be correct and Christianity will be wrong again.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001You are so right. Following your logic therefore, I should become a Hindu. Surely, if surviving 2,000 years makes Christianity true, then surviving about 4,500 more must make Hinduism extra true!!!
B.S. does not survive for 2,000 years.
The Bible has many different authors spanning many different times - what other work about heroes, demigods etc. share this trait?
The many different authors over different time periods give the Bible a much more credible account than something written by one person in one short time period.
What other w ...[text shortened]... pparent reason Christianity keeps spreading. I don't think B.S. could do that for 2,000 years!
from wiki:
"The earliest evidence for elements of Hinduism dates back as far as the late neolithic, to the early Harappan period (ca. 5500–3300 BCE).[51] The beliefs and practices of the pre-classical era (ca. 1500-500 BCE) are called the "Vedic religion". The oldest surviving text of Hinduism is the Rigveda, which is dated to between 1700–1100 BCE based on linguistic and philological evidence.[52]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#History